Disposed

Rama Chandra Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC21 Dec 2022WP(C)/33779/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa disposed of the Writ Petition without expressing an opinion on merits. The Court directed the Superintending Engineer to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation regarding enhanced minimum wages within three months, applying the ratio from a cited precedent.

What did the court decide?

Directed Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the Petitioner's representation within three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

Rama Chandra Mahakud Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P (C) No.33779 of 2022

¶3

Rama Chandra Mahakud

¶4

….. Petitioner Mr. A. Pattanaik, Advocate

¶5

Vs. ….. State of Odisha & Others Opposite Parties

¶6

Mr.P.P. Mohanty, A.G.A

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

¶9

MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶10

ORDER

¶11

21.12.2022

¶12

Order This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. No.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. A.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P. P. Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate.

¶14

3. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking direction to Opposite Party No.3 to reimburse the enhanced differential amount of minimum wages, as enhanced from Annexure-2 on the basis of the formula given under Annexure-3 and in view of the Judgment of this Court passed in Mahesh Prasad Mishra v. State of Orissa, 2012 (Suppl.-I) OLR 1035 under Annexure-4 in respect of the Tender Work for “Construction & Maintenance of Rural Roads & CD works under the Normal PMGSY (Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana) Batch-1 (Philin) for the package No.OR-02-348/B-I UG of 2016-17 (Name of the Road Bidu- to Jaynagar) in the district of Balasore vide Agreement No.04 P1 PMGSY of 2016-17” or in alternative, Opposite Party No.3 i.e. Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Division-II, Balasore may be directed to dispose of the Representation dated 21.10.2022 under Annexure-5 within a

¶15

Page 1 of 3

¶16

stipulated period.

¶17

4. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner has already made Representation before Opposite Party No.3Superintending Engineer, Rural Works Division-II, Balasore vide Annexure-5, and the same may be directed to be disposed of within a stipulated time taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra (supra) vide Annexure-4, to which learned Counsel for the State has no objection.

¶18

5. As agreed by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the Writ Petition directing Opposite Party No.3 to consider and dispose of the Representation filed by the Petitioner vide Annexure-5 and pass appropriate order taking into consideration the ratio decided by this Court in Mahesh Prasad Mishra (supra) under Annexure-4 as earlier as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶19

6. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶20

(DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶21

(B. P. SATAPATHY) JUDGE

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

Alok/Sangita

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Rama Chandra Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rama Chandra Mahakud v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Patawari Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

B.P. Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha

B.P.Construction and Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha

Laxmidhar Sahoo Vs Ao Cum Chief Manager, Bank of Baroda, Niladrivihar Branch

Major (Dr.) Biplabi Biswa Keshari Mohanty Vs State of Orissa

Srinibash Swain Vs the Ao, Uco Bank, Balasore